The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the Crossroads Senior and Community Center, 50 East 200 South, Roosevelt, Utah, was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those in attendance and excused Commissioner Clyde from the meeting. He introduced the Commission members attending and had other local officials introduce themselves.

Approval of MinutesCommissioner Eastman moved to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2000, Commission meeting held in Salt Lake City. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Region Three Local Area PresentationChairman Brown turned the time over to Commissioner Wilson for the local area presentation. Commissioner Wilson introduced Region Three Director Alan Mecham. Mr. Mecham said none of his project managers were able to attend today’s meeting. He then reviewed the projects each of the project manager’s have responsibility for in this area. He said Dan Nelson’s projects include a couple of bridges in the area, rehabilitation of the Green River bridge, and the state park access road into Red Fleet. Greg Searle’s projects include Arcadia Road, Strawberry River bridges, and the Browns Park Road project in Daggett County. Lori Dabling is responsible for the 1500 West reconstruction project in Vernal, and two Ashley Creek bridges. Phil Huff’s project is at Red Creek. Commissioner Wilson turned the time back over to Chairman Brown.

Public CommentsSenator Beverly Evans thanked the Commission for coming to Roosevelt. She said there is an issue they need to address that could become a major problem, and it has to do with utility companies drilling across a state road. UDOT requires an inspector to come from Salt Lake in order for that work to be done, and many times an inspector is not available or they are limited to one person who is the contact person because those services are contracted out. Sometimes those costs are very high. Senator Evans said if they have local people trained and available to do the work, it would be much more effective to do it locally than to rely on someone from Salt Lake. The cost of one phone call can be $100, and it can cost up to $1800 for a state inspector to come.

Chairman Brown asked Director Warne to comment on the utility situation. Director Warne remarked that when a utility company puts a facility into a state road, they have to cut the pavement and the Department requires an inspection to be done to make sure it’s done correctly. However, within the last few months, some irregularities and fraudulence have been discovered. There were some quite gross charges that spurred an audit, and all those cases have been brought back into UDOT to be done by UDOT staff. It’s wrong to be overcharged. The audits have been scheduled for reimbursements to be made due to the overcharges. Director Warne said they are on track in solving the problem, but they don’t know how long it will take to fix things. Alan Mecham mentioned there were some overcharges that happened in this area of Region Three. Part of the reason was because of the amount of travel charges. They are working on the reimbursements.

Summit County Commissioner Patrick Cone thanked the Department for their work in Summit County, and said there are a lot of projects in their area due to the Olympics. He then mentioned the Enhancements Advisory Committee and said he understood there are two projects in the STIP, the pedestrian overpass over I-80, and the Oakley/Kamas trail. He said it looks like these projects are being addressed, but asked about the three year projection that was done for the first time this year. Linda Hull responded that they’ve always done just one year of programming of enhancement projects, but this year decided to extend it to a three year program so people would have some idea of what’s coming up. She said it’s quite difficult for a local government to get a project ready at the last minute. They are a lot happier with this multi year enhancement program.

Juan Arce-Laretta from the Salt Lake City Mayor’s office commented on the Parley’s Crossing project. He said it is a unique project that has involved the cooperation and coordination of various agencies such as state, county, city and private foundations. Everyone is committed to this project. He said Salt Lake City is also committed to establishing an east/west corridor along I-80, potentially up through Parley’s Canyon and into Park City. They would like to plan a safe trail for recreation and commuter use, and the tunnel is a huge part of that. Mr. Arce-Laretta thanked the Department for their consideration of this project. Chairman Brown asked about the Mayor’s stance regarding the Grand Mall project. Mr. Arce-Laretta replied that it’s no secret that Mayor Anderson is opposed to the Grand Mall. There was additional discussion regarding the Grand Mall.

Chairman Brown commented about the enhancement projects and said he has received letters across the state relative to the enhancement projects. He asked if there was some misunderstanding out there. Ms. Hull said there might be some confusion because the list of enhancement projects came out on time this year. Normally the Enhancement Committee is behind in getting the list out and it ends up being thrown into the finalized STIP right before being approved by the Commission. This year the enhancement list is in the draft STIP that is going out for public comment. There may also be additional confusion because of the multi year program. Commissioner Larkin mentioned that in the past, the committee had sent a letter to the communities saying they had been selected to receive enhancement money, and this year nothing has been sent yet. This could be where the problem lies, the fact they haven’t been notified yet. Ms. Hull said the letters were being held because they wanted to wait until the Commission put out the draft STIP. She’ll be glad to have those letters go out now saying the projects have been put on the draft STIP for public comment.

Duchesne County Commissioner Larry Ross spoke. He said they are happy to have the Transportation Commission in Duchesne County. His comments focused on some bridge projects scheduled for this summer, improvements on Highway 40 west of Roosevelt, and the project at Red Creek. He also talked about the Arcadia Road project and the proposed improvements they had intended to do over the last several years. He also mentioned the involvement the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Ute Indian tribe would have with the project. He said there are some issues that need to be resolved and they would like to see that project done soon.

Alan Fawsett, Heber City planning director, thanked the Commission for their consideration of the Heber Main Street project. They are scrambling to get the project up and going for the 2002 Olympics. They want to put a good face forward for the community in representing the Olympic experience.

Planning and ProgrammingFunding for SR-6Alan Mecham said there was $6 million in state funds obligated on SR-6 for the I-15 to Moark Junction project in Spanish Fork. The original scope of the project was cut back, but when they got the $6 million back, a decision was made that the best use of the money wasn’t on that particular segment of SR-6, but to use it on an area further up the canyon that was identified for safety purposes, where they would do passing lanes in an area called Sheep Creek. Mr. Mecham said the cost of the project went up and he was asked to explain what they would be doing with the full $6 million. There is currently $400,000 being spent on signing and ITS installation, and $1.3 million for a passing lane east of Sheep Creek. However, that $1.3 million is not enough and they will have to scale back the scope of the project or bid only part of it and wait for more money. The full cost would be approximately $2.5 million. Mr. Mecham said they would go ahead and design the whole 1.8 miles of the project and build what they have money for. The current estimate for the curve flattening and passing lane project is $4.3 million. All together it adds up to $6 million. Linda Hull said it would be appropriate for the Commission to take an action to amend the STIP to reflect those adjustments. Commissioner Wilson commented on some concerns he had about funding for signing. He also suggested if there are any other funds earmarked for Highway 6, or if there are any surplus funds, that those funds be transferred to the two passing lane projects at Sheep Creek to tie those projects together, especially while the contractor is there. Mr. Mecham doesn’t know if they can combine the two projects or not. He’d have to check into it to see if that would work. They are also caught in the air conformity lapse in Utah County, which goes into effect August 15th.

Commissioner Larkin moved to amend the STIP to reflect the adjustments as presented, and to also include the concerns Commissioner Wilson expressed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson and approved.

Cross Hollow Road – I-15 to SR-56George Thompson said the Joint Highway Committee met in March to approve the TIP of the small urban road program. Tooele had a project scheduled, in which had the engineering done. But they are not quite ready to start the project and are unable to use the STP funds as allocated on the STIP. So the Joint Highway Committee put the Tooele project back to 2003 and approved the Cross Hollow Road in Cedar City to move forward out of CD and be constructed in 2002. Cross Hollow Road runs from the south interchange in a northwest direction and connects with SR-56. Most of it is a dirt road. They are asking for $1 million. The local match would be about $1.73 million. However, the problem is the road is still not classified to be eligible for federal funds. Mr. Thompson said they are working with the Federal Highway Administration to have the classification made, so any approval by the Commission would be subject to the road being classified as a collector for a functional arterial system.

Commissioner Wilson moved to approve the request as presented, subject to the proper road designation being made for the federal money to be applied. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved.

Funding Request from the Joint Highway CommitteeLinda Hull distributed some handouts and said at the last Joint Highway Committee meeting there was concern that they had not received an increase in the bridge program. She said the chart that was handed out shows the four categories of funds that are administered jointly by the JHC and Transportation Commission. She then reviewed how they have made the determination on the level of funds that are available for the program. Line one is the Bridge Off System Local. The six year average is just over $2 million. The amount of funds needs to meet the federal requirement that a minimum 15% of the state’s apportionment be spent off system. On line two, the Bridge Option Local, the footnote states the Federal statute allows up to 35% of the State’s apportionment to be spent off-system. In the past the Department has done 35%. But there was a concern a few years ago that the State had a lot of very low sufficiency ratings on structures that needed to be replaced, and the funds were being shifted to go on the off-system bridges that had higher sufficiency ratings while the state was still struggling with very low sufficiency rating bridges. So, the Commission adopted a policy to hold the level of funds to 20% of the state apportionment. That still met the federal requirement of 15 to 35%. The amount of funds did drop, but there are still $3.15 million of total bridge funds.

Ms. Hull said line four, Any Area - Small Urban, needs to meet federal requirements that areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an amount based on pre-ISTEA funding, which was previously the Rural Secondary program. That category is receiving a proportional increase. However, the category on line five is not increasing. These are funds the Commission set aside in 1991 as a supplement to the Any Area - Small Urban. Besides, $3.5 million is more than what is required, and it has remained constant since 1991. Ms. Hull said what is important is the column with the unobligated funds. Currently there are $2.9 million of unobligated funds in the Any Area - Small Urban program, and $6.1 million of unobligated funds in the Non Urban Local program. That’s a total of $9 million of unobligated funds. The concern is if funds are increased, then the amount of unobligated funds will also grow. Ms. Hull recommended not considering any increase until the JHC can demonstrate the ability to obligate at least 85% of the funds to projects.

Clyde Naylor, Utah County engineer and JHC Chair, asked what the reason was for concern about not obligating the funds. Ms. Hull replied at the end of the fiscal year, the Department has to obligate all of the federal funds for the year. When they are not obligated, they have to be managed internally. There has been an increase in federal funds for the State of Utah, but for the JHC program the only proportional increase has been to STP Small Urban Area funds. The local governments were not getting projects out as programmed. Discussion followed on the reasons for projects not being ready, and management of projects.

Monument Valley Welcome Center and Four Corners MonumentLinda Hull said Senator Hatch authored a bill that made $2 million of federal funds available to build a monument at the Four Corners area. It also required a $2 million match from the four surrounding states. UDOT is reluctant to participate because none of the roads access the monument from Utah. Based on conversations with San Juan County, they have to get some agreement by the end of FY 2001 or Senator Hatch’s authorization runs out. As far as a source of funds for the Utah match, Ms. Hull said they have looked at using Indian road money. But in reading Senator Hatch’s bill, she has some concerns that they can even use that. On page four of the bill in Section 5 (a)(2)(A), it says the non-Federal share of the costs of construction is paid from non-Federal sources. Item (B) says the aggregate amount of non-Federal funds contributed by the States is $2 million. Based on that, it looks like Federal funds can’t be used to match that money. State funds would have to be used. However, in the bill it looks like Arizona was able to get away with using enhancement money.

Chairman Brown said there is a meeting on July 12th regarding Four Corners, and it would be good if the state could deliver a favorable message of state support at that meeting. Governor Leavitt would like the state to participate, but only if all the other states participate too. Utah needs to be prepared to meet its part of the bargain, but if the others don’t come through, the state’s money shouldn’t be left sitting there unused. Commissioner Wilson expressed his support of the project. Ms. Hull reiterated that as far as the source of funds are concerned, it looks like they would have to use state construction dollars. She will talk to FHWA to see if Indian road funds could be used. Chairman Brown asked that this item be brought back in June with the alternative sources of funds available in order for the Commission to make a decision.

FY 2001 - 2005 Draft STIPLinda Hull said the draft STIP has been put together. All of the recommendations and changes that were made at the Commission Workshop have been incorporated. Approval is needed from the Commission to put the draft STIP out for public comment. All the comments received will be taken into consideration and a final STIP will be brought back to the Commission in August for final approval.

Commissioner Bodily moved to authorize the Department to publish the draft STIP for public comment. It was seconded by Commissioner Wells and approved.

AeronauticsRevisions to Commission Policy on Airport FundingBob Barrett said the first item is their recommendations for the policy the Commission adopted last June in restricting funding due to a shortfall they had. The recent passage of AIR-21 by Congress introduced a number of positive changes. Maintenance projects will now be allowed to use federal funding. In the past, the only maintenance projects able to use federal funding were pavement rehabilitations and reconstruction. That has now been broadened to include other maintenance items such as crack seals, seal coats, etc. Mr. Barrett said they have been given a verbal commitment from the Denver District office that they will be able to use about $3 million on maintenance projects. In addition to having about $2 million a year available because of the recent fuel tax increase, they will have enough to meet their $4.5 million requirement to do maintenance projects. Mr. Barrett warned that this is only a three year authorization, and at the end of the three years, they don’t know what will happen, so they would like to still maintain the restricted airport funding list. It’s important to maintain that list and to continue to work with the legislature to solve the funding shortfall on a longer term basis to secure general fund contributions that is an ongoing year to year appropriation, so that after this three year preauthorization period ends, they at least will be closer to solving the problem.

With that in mind, Mr. Barrett suggested the following changes to the policy that was adopted last June. First, he would like to decrease the list from 20 to 18 airports. During the past year, Milford and Duchesne airports have made a significant investment of their own funds into those airports. That would show an example to the other 18 airports by taking those two airports off the list in recognition of the local investments that have been made. Second, with the remaining 18 airports, he would recommend that if there’s an overriding need and strong recommendation from the FAA, the Division of Aeronautics, and the Commission, there be consideration of other projects at those airports on a case by case basis. Third, one of the problems that will be faced with the increase in the amount of federal money available under the new AIR-21 program is the ability of local communities to match the entire local match. That requirement was changed in the policy last year. Mr. Barrett proposed that on total project costs of less than $500,000, the sponsor continue to be responsible for the entire local match. For projects that have a total cost between $500,000 and $1 million, the local sponsor will continue to pay the entire local match on the first $500,000, and the Division of Aeronautics will match the amount over $500,000, up to $1 million, with state appropriated funding. Then, for projects costing more than $1 million, the state would split the match 50/50. Finally, they have both state system plans and metropolitan state system plans that are eligible for federal funding. However, there has been a lot of disagreement with the FAA, who won’t permit the expenditure of federal funding on coordination. The system plan itself is a physical project, but the coordination can’t be funded. That is one of the most critical parts of the system planning process. So, they would like to be able to spend state funding for the system planning grants. In exchange for that, they would then have the federal money that is going into the system planning grants available for use on maintenance projects. Mr. Barrett said those are the recommendations they are making for the Commission to consider in realigning the policy that was adopted last year.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the recommendations presented by Mr. Barrett. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved.

Aeronautical ProjectsMr. Barrett said the first aeronautical project is at Wayne Wonderland Airport. This is one that is affected by the policy that was just changed. It is an airport layout plan project that was planned in FY 99 before the policy was adopted. However, they were not ready to go ahead with the project at that time, then the project was denied because of the change in the policy. They would now like to go ahead with this planning project in FY 2001. The total cost of the project is $30,000, with $27,282 coming from federal funds, and the remaining local share would be borne by the Wayne Wonderland Airport.

Mr. Barrett said the rest of the projects are maintenance projects, and are all seal coats and painting of the runways. The first one is at Cal Black Memorial Airport at Hall’s Crossing. The total cost of the project is $106,989. They are asking for state funds in the amount of $85,591, with the rest to be borne by San Juan County. The next two projects are at the Richfield airport. One has to do with a crack seal that was just completed. There was a slight overrun on the project because there were more cracks and wider cracks than anticipated. The increase is for $5,600. The second Richfield project is the seal coat and painting of the asphalt surface. The total amount of the project is $48,958, with state funds of $39,166 being requested.

At the Panguitch Municipal Airport, they will do a seal coat and repainting of the asphalt surface. They are also looking to construct drainage around the turnaround on both ends of the runway. The total cost of the project is $105,994, and $84,795 is being requested from the state. Finally, at the Kanab Airport this is also a seal coat and repainting of the airport asphalt surface. The total cost is $69,988, with state funds requested in the amount of $55,990.

Commissioner Eastman made a motion to approve the projects as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved.

I-215 Northwest Bridge Approach Slab RepairsJohn Njord pointed out that in the last little while, the Department has discovered along I-215 a number of structures that have approach slabs that are deteriorating quite rapidly. They’ve spent a lot of time doing some patching, but now the concrete is not attached to the approach slabs, and it’s the little plugs in between the surface and the approach slabs that are the problem. They are starting to unravel and fall apart. The Region would like to go out and repair those problems. There is a total of three bridges near California Avenue, so in both directions there are six approach slabs they would be looking at. There are some similar conditions on I-215 on the east side at about 1700 East. They would like to repair those slabs as well. The final location is on the connector road that takes I-80 southbound to I-215. The total cost of these repairs is about $560,000.

Mr. Njord said the strategy to pay for these repairs is that over the last year, the region has advertised a number of rotomill and overlay projects that have come in considerably underbid. Although those projects are not yet complete, the amount that has been underbid is $1.4 million on five projects. There should be plenty of money to go ahead with this project using the savings from those rotomill and overlay projects. There was general discussion regarding technical aspects of the project, as well as other repairs to I-215 that may be needed in the future.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to allow Region Two to repair the approach slabs using reallocated funds that will be available from the savings of underbid projects. It was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved.

Approval for Use of Corridor Preservation FundsJohn Njord said there are three different areas being considered. He said the Jeppesen parcel is the first parcel the Department has had to address on 11400 South. The map clearly shows that the home will be taken when the project is completed. The owner has also moved to Texas and is waiting to sell the home and has had trouble doing so. They are asking for advanced acquisition under a hardship. There are also two parcels on US-89. Both parcels are adjacent to the highway and have direct access to US-89. If those parcels are acquired, then the Department can eliminate those accesses. The final grouping is for six different parcels along the Legacy Highway. They are all within the recommended alignment for the Legacy Highway at this point. Some of these are advanced acquisitions under hardship, and the others are being acquired to protect the corridor from future development and future expense. Mr. Njord recommended approval for the acquisitions of all of the parcels. He also noted that they need to spend all of the corridor preservation funds by July of this year in order to avoid facing arbitrage.

Commissioner Wells moved to approve the parcels for purchase for corridor preservation with the corridor preservation funds as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved.

Informational ItemsNext Transportation Commission MeetingsThe next regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission will be held on June 23, 2000, 9:00 a.m., in Tremonton, Utah. There was also discussion regarding the July meeting. Per the request of Commissioner Wilson, the July date and location for the Commission meeting was changed to July 28, 2000 in Price, Utah. The following dates and locations have been scheduled:

July 28, 2000 - Price (change of date and location)

August 25, 2000 - Salt Lake City

The meeting adjourned at 11:34 a.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance: